Aug. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Lawyers for Sheriff Joe Arpaio of
Arizona’s Maricopa County said in closing trial arguments that
the plaintiffs in a civil rights lawsuit failed to prove his
department engaged in racial profiling of Latinos.

The closing arguments were filed yesterday following a
seven-day trial in federal court in Phoenix that was heard
without a jury and ended Aug. 2. Arpaio’s attorneys said there
was “no evidence of discriminatory intent” in any of the
traffic stops highlighted in trial testimony.

The Arpaio deputy who stopped the vehicle in which the lead
plaintiff, Ortega Melendres, was riding “did not know or see
the race of the passengers” and stopped the vehicle “solely on
probable cause that it was speeding,” according to the filing
by attorneys Timothy J. Casey, James L. Williams and Thomas P.
Liddy.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of Latinos who, since
January 2007, have been stopped, detained, questioned or
searched by sheriff’s office agents in Maricopa County, which
includes Phoenix. The five named plaintiffs said in the lawsuit
that deputies discriminate against Latino residents,
particularly in traffic stops. The civil rights case is backed
by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican Legal
Defense and Education Fund.

‘Racial Profiling’

The claim of Maricopa County sergeants, when presented with
lists that showed the large majority of individuals they
arrested had Hispanic names, that there was no racial profiling
is nonsensical, according to closing arguments filed by the
plaintiffs.

“Charging a person under a ‘race neutral’ criminal statute
does not demonstrate the absence of racial profiling, and the
racially skewed arrest lists should have triggered the need for
further investigations,” according to the filing.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys Stanley Young, Andrew Byrnes and
Daniel Pochoda argued that the sheriff’s office, led by Arpaio,
has policies and practices that violate the Fourteenth Amendment
and “has an admitted policy of relying on race when forming
reasonable suspicion of immigration violation during traffic
stops.”

Young also argued that the sheriff’s office “has a policy
and practice of initiating saturation patrols and selectively
enforcing traffic laws based on race.”

While the defense had argued that sherrif deputies had made
traffic stops based on probable cause, like a cracked
windshield, plaintiffs argued that in many stops, “deputies
could not possibly have observed the traffic violations
that were asserted” until “after the stops were made.”

The case is Melendres v. Arpaio, 07-02513, U.S. District
Court, District of Arizona (Phoenix).

To contact the reporter on this story:
William Hermann in Phoenix at aphoto61@cox.net